AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL DOCUMENT CASE NUMBER FD-2019-00692 GENERAL: The applicant was discharged on 7 Oct 15 in accordance with AFI 36-3208 with an Honorable discharge for Non-Retention on Active Duty. The applicant appealed for a change to his discharge narrative reason, and a change to the reenlistment eligibility code. The board was conducted on 27 Feb 20. The applicant was offered a personal appearance before the Discharge Review Board (DRB), but declined and requested the board be completed based on a records only review. The applicant was represented by counsel. Pursuant to 10 USC ยง1553, the board included a member who is a psychiatrist with training on mental health issues connected with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), and training on mental health disorders. The attached examiner's brief (provided to applicant only), extracted from available service records, contains pertinent data regarding the circumstances and character of the applicant's military service. FINDING: The DRB voted unanimously to deny the applicant's request to change the discharge narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and to change the reenlistment eligibility code to 3K. DISCUSSION: The DRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an applicant's discharge, is authorized to change the characterization of service and the narrative reason for discharge if such changes are warranted. If applicable, the board can also change the applicant's reenlistment eligibility code. In reviewing discharges, the board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the applicant. The board completed a thorough review of the circumstances that led to the discharge and the discharge process to determine if the discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The applicant's record of service did not include any disciplinary actions. The applicant contended the discharge was inequitable because they do not reflect the applicant's career, and there is no justification to deny his reenlistment. The applicant believes narrative reason and reenlistment entry code do not reflect a career that included consistent "above average" ratings on evaluations, and a promotion within a year the separation. The applicant insists there is no evidence of reenlistment he never received any non-judicial punishment, or disciplinary actions. The applicant insists there is no evidence of a reenlistment denial signed by his commander in his record, and he did not sign a form that acknowledged receipt of a denial. The DRB reviewed the applicant's entire record and discovered the applicant requested two 30-day extensions to appeal the selective reenlistment program denial. The board noted the extensions identified the reenlistment eligibility code was 2X. The board found no evidence to justify making any changes to the discharge. After a thorough review of the service record and inputs from the board's psychiatrist, the DRB found no conclusive indication that any mental health issues had a direct impact on the applicant's misconduct or discharge. CONCLUSION: The board found insufficient evidence of an inequity or impropriety that would warrant a change to the applicant's discharge. Therefore, the discharge received by the applicant was deemed to be appropriate and his request was not approved. The DRB results were approved by the board president on 27 Apr 20. If desired, the applicant can request a list of the board members and their votes by writing to: Air Force Review Boards Agency Attn: Discharge Review Board 3351 Celmers Lane Joint Base Andrews, NAF Washington, MD 20762-6602 Attachment: Examiner's Brief (Applicant Only)